Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, fine. Let's consider the case in which TPM is "hard" to apply: > Then isn't it an effective barrier to further modification and > redistribution (i.e. non-free)?
It's a practical problem, not necessarily something non-free. [...] > I stand by my opinion that TPM is intrinsically simpler than binary > compilation. > [...] After all, there is a standing assumption that programs are > written by expert "developers" who are not regarded as being in the same > class as mere "users". > [...] But content creation is not a technical specialty. [...] The above assumptions are flawed, in my experience (I've used TPM more complex than compilation; I was no expert when I started writing programs; and putting out a radio magazine show is surely a technical specialty - well, if you want to do it right). > [...] It creates an incentive to keep the TPM simple to apply. While noble, that is not necessarily any more free than requiring distribution to always be in a shar. > [...] So the anti-TPM > clause is necessary to preserve copyleft, and Debian really needs to > recognize that in order to remain the flagship free software > distribution that it is. Yeah, and Debian really needs to recognise patent-poison-pill clauses, anti-commercial clauses and distributing Netscape in main(!) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]